Chemistry 6440 / 7440 Molecular Mechanics

Resources Grant and Richards, Chapter 3 Leach, Chapter 3 Jensen, Chapter 2 Cramer, Chapter 2 Burkert and Allinger, Molecular Mechanics (ACS Monograph 177, 1982) Bowen and Allinger, Rev. Comput. Chem. 2, 81 (1991)

Empirical Force Fields PES calculated using empirical potentials fitted to experimental and calculated data composed of stretch, bend, torsion and non-bonded components E = E str + E bend + E torsion + E non-bond e.g. the stretch component has a term for each bond in the molecule

Empirical Force Fields potential energy curves for individual terms are approximately transferable (e.g. CH stretch in ethane almost the same as in octane) terms consist of functional forms and parameters parameters chosen to fit structures (in some cases also vibrational spectra, steric energies)

Empirical Force Fields a force field is comprised of functional forms, parameters and atom types each atomic number is divided into atom types, based on bonding and environment (e.g. carbon: sp 3, sp 2, sp, aromatic, carbonyl, etc.) parameters are assigned based on the atom types involved (e.g. different C-C bond length and force constant for sp 3 -sp 3 vs sp 2 -sp 2 )

Empirical Force Fields examples: MM2, MM3, Amber, Sybyl, Dreiding, UFF, MMFF, etc. differ by the functional forms and parameters not mix and match - each developed to be internally self consistent some force field use united atoms (i.e. H's condensed into the heavy atoms) to reduce the total number of atoms (but with a reduction in accuracy)

Empirical Force Fields molecular mechanics force fields differ from force fields used for vibrational analysis, and analytical potential energy surfaces used for dynamics - these are custom fit for individual systems molecular mechanics force fields are designed to be transferable, and can be used for broad classes of molecular systems (but stay within the scope of the original parameterization)

Bond Stretch Term many force fields use just a quadratic term, but the energy is too large for very elongated bonds E str =  k i (r – r 0 ) 2 Morse potential is more accurate, but is usually not used because of expense E str =  D e [1-exp(-  (r – r 0 )] 2 a cubic polynomial has wrong asymptotic form, but a quartic polynomial is a good fit for bond length of interest E str =  { k i (r – r 0 ) 2 + k’ i (r – r 0 ) 3 + k” i (r – r 0 ) 4 } The reference bond length, r 0, not the same as the equilibrium bond length, because of non-bonded contributions

Comparison of Potential Energy Functions for Bond Stretch

Angle Bend Term usually a quadratic polynomial is sufficient E bend =  k i (  –  0 ) 2 for very strained systems (e.g. cyclopropane) a higher polynomial is better E bend =  k i (  –  0 ) 2 + k’ i (  –  0 ) 3 + k” i (  –  0 ) alternatively, special atom types may be used for very strained atoms

Torsional Term most force fields use a single cosine with appropriate barrier multiplicity, n E tors =  V i cos[n(  –  0 )] some use a sum of cosines for 1-fold (dipole), 2- fold (conjugation) and 3-fold (steric) contributions E tors =  { V i cos[(  –  0 )] + V’ i cos[2(  –  0 )] + V” i cos[3(  –  0 )] }

Torsional potential for n-butane as a sum of 1-fold, 2-fold and 3-fold terms

Out-of-Plane Bending Term angle-to-plane or distance-to-plane can be used for the out-of- plane bending coordinate improper torsions can also used for out-of- plane bends chirality constraints are required in united atom force fields

Non-Bonded Terms van der Waals, electrostatic and hydrogen bonded interactions E non-bond = E vdW + E es + E Hbond repulsive part of van der Waals potential –due to overlap of electron distributions (Pauli exclusion) –rises very steeply (steric repulsion) attractive part of van der Waals potential –due to London or dispersion forces –instantaneous dipole - induce dipole interaction –proportional to r -6

Non-Bonded Terms Lennard-Jones potential –E vdW =  4  ij ( (  ij / r ij ) 12 - (  ij / r ij ) 6 ) –easy to compute, but r -12 rises too rapidly Buckingham potential –E vdW =  A exp(-B r ij ) - C r ij -6 –QM suggests exponential repulsion better, but is harder to compute tabulate  and  for each atom –obtain mixed terms as arithmetic and geometric means –  AB = (  AA +  BB )/2;  AB = (  AA  BB ) 1/2

Comparison of Non-Bonded Potential Functions

Electrostatic Interactions E es =  Q i Q j / r ij atom centered charges can be computed from molecular orbital calculations charges can be obtained from population analysis, electrostatic potentials or atomic polar tensors however: –MO calculations are expensive –charges are not uniquely defined –charges may vary with conformation

Electrostatic Interactions in addition to atom centered charges, one can also include atom centered multipoles for better fit to electrostatic potentials alternatively, one can use off-center charges for better representation of electrostatic potentials around lone pairs cheaper (but less accurate) charges can be calculated using the method of electronegativity equalization can also include polarization effects – need to compute energy iteratively (expensive and not that much of an improvement) can include polarization effects in an average way with distance dependent dielectric constant E es =  Q i Q j / D(r ij ) r ij

Hydrogen Bonding Interactions some force fields add extra term E Hbond =  A r ij C r ij -10 –however, this requires hydrogen bonds to be identified before the calculation is carried out other force fields just use a balance between electrostatic and non-bonded terms

Cross Terms more accurate representation of the potential energy surface (e.g. for vibrational frequencies) requires interaction terms between stretch, bend and torsion the most important terms are E str-str =  k ij (r i – r i0 ) (r j – r j0 ) E str-bend =  k ij (r i – r i0 ) (  j –  j0 ) E bend-bend =  k ij (  i –  i0 ) (  j –  j0 ) E bend-bend-tors =  V ij (  i –  i0 ) (  j –  j0 ) cos[n(  ij –  ij0 )]

Cross terms used in some MM force fields

Parameterization difficult, computationally intensive, inexact fit to structures (and properties) for a training set of molecules recent generation of force fields fit to ab initio data at minima and distorted geometries trial and error fit, or least squares fit (need to avoid local minima, excessive bias toward some parameters at the expense of others) different parameter sets and functional forms can give similar structures and energies but different decomposition into components don't mix and match

Energetics steric energy –energy relative to an artificial structure with no interactions –can be used to compare different conformers of same molecule strain energy –energy relative to a strainless molecule –e.g. all trans hydrocarbons (note: steric energy not necessarily zero) very dangerous to decompose energy into components (stretch, bend torsion, non-bonded etc.) –different force fields can give similar energies and structures but quite different components heat of formation –average bond energies added to the strain energy to get approximate atomization energy –heat of formation of the molecule = atomization energy of the molecule – heat of formation of the atoms

Applications good geometries and relative energies of conformers of the same molecule (provided that electronic interactions are not important) effect of substituents on geometry and strain energy well parameterized for organics, less so for inorganics specialty force fields available for proteins, DNA, for liquid simulation molecular mechanics cannot be used for reactions that break bonds (EVB methods can be used to construct reactive potentials based on molecular mechanics) useful for simple organic problems: ring strain in cycloalkanes, conformational analysis, Bredt's rule, etc. high end biochemistry problems: docking of substrates into active sites, refining x-ray structures, determining structures from NMR data, free energy simulations